FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2807264112> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2807264112 endingPage "454" @default.
• W2807264112 startingPage "452" @default.
• W2807264112 abstract "Reviewed by: Reply to James McFarland's review of Red Kant: Aesthetics, Marxism and the Third Critique German Studies Review Mike Wayne Reply to James McFarland's review of Red Kant: Aesthetics, Marxism and the Third Critique German Studies Review40, no. 3(2017): 632– 634. In his highly problematic assessment of Siegfried Kracauer's work, Theodor Adorno adopted the rather disreputable method of building a psychological profile of Kracauer and then reading his work off from that. It was not Adorno's finest hour and perhaps it is not too generous to say the same of James McFarland's review of my book Red Kant: Aesthetics, Marxism and the Third Critique. At least Adorno could claim to have [End Page 452]had a long friendship with Kracauer, although no doubt one that got a lot cooler after Adorno's published assessment. Imagine my surprise then when at the end of a disappointingly superficial engagement and apparently willfully misleading presentation of my arguments, I find this piercing psychological insight, camouflaged by a rather, how shall I say it, underdeveloped sociological framework? A reader gets the feeling that Wayne's anticapitalist rhetoric reflects a sociological function played by research universities in modern capitalist societies, as sites of potential intergenerational class mobility, with all the psychological ambivalence such transplantations engender. The drama of Red Kantis thus primarily a personal drama; Wayne's demonstration that despite his immersion in a world of academic debate and conceptual reflection far removed from any directly practical effects on the material conditions of social existence, he has not lost his sympathy for ordinary hardworking people. Wayne's search for an antibourgeois Kant is an apology for the appearance of class abandonment in the adoption of academic forms of production. (634) I know this is only a book review, but is it too much to ask from the editors of the journal a little more attention to such scholarly protocols as actually engaging with the substance of a text even if the author disagrees with it? Admittedly I did use the terms bourgeois and antibourgeois as something of a provocation, and it seems I was perhaps overly successful. Someone seems to have taken the hook, line, and sinker. I was not however silly enough to use such terms without defining and contextualizing them. On the first page of the first chapter I note that we may define bourgeois scholarship on Kant as constitutionally unable to interrogate the historical and class-conditioned nature of Kant's work or its own interpretations (7). As for antibourgeois the term is used in relation to a carefully prepared and extended discussion of the work of Bourdieu and Rancière on the aesthetic and is meant to indicate a reading of Kant that avoids the twin philosophical traps of crude materialism and wild idealism, which, in part, these two thinkers, respectively, can be faulted on. Of course the notion that history and class inscribes itself into the innermost workings of philosophical traditions in a set of complex antinomies derives from Lukács's work. I am fairly sure that this was not motivated by a guilt-ridden psychodrama on his part and I can say the same for my own work as well. Red Kantgoes further than Lukács in elaborating lines of thought and potentialities in Kant's work that may be helpful for our own historical moment and in suggesting that it is Kant's aesthetic turn, as it were, that allows Kant to start to push beyond those bourgeois antinomies. In this I take a cue from Lucien Goldmann who was more receptive than Lukács in thinking about Kant as a protodialectical thinker. If the term bourgeois indicates a horizon beyond which thought cannot go, it does not [End Page 453]of course say anything about the respective merits of the content of a philosophy or theory. What it does suggest however is that it works as a diagnostic tool and a premise for immanent critique. Assuming that we cannot do without much of what we have inherited from the past, immanent critique explores the internal tensions and contradictions of a work, in order to equip ourselves..." @default.
• W2807264112 created "2018-06-13" @default.
• W2807264112 creator A5076267492 @default.
• W2807264112 date "2018-01-01" @default.
• W2807264112 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2807264112 title "Reply to James McFarland's review of Red Kant: Aesthetics, Marxism and the Third Critique German Studies Review" @default.
• W2807264112 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/gsr.2018.0051" @default.
• W2807264112 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2807264112 type Work @default.
• W2807264112 sameAs 2807264112 @default.
• W2807264112 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2807264112 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2807264112 hasAuthorship W2807264112A5076267492 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C122980154 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C124952713 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C1370556 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C142362112 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C154775046 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C162127614 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C27206212 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConcept C523419034 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C107038049 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C111472728 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C11171543 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C122980154 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C124952713 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C1370556 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C138885662 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C142362112 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C154775046 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C15744967 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C162127614 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C27206212 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C41895202 @default.
• W2807264112 hasConceptScore W2807264112C523419034 @default.
• W2807264112 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2807264112 hasLocation W28072641121 @default.
• W2807264112 hasOpenAccess W2807264112 @default.
• W2807264112 hasPrimaryLocation W28072641121 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W1585936253 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W1605667532 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W2028371406 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W2136785210 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W2313632330 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W2515130486 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W395354634 @default.
• W2807264112 hasRelatedWork W651216705 @default.
• W2807264112 hasVolume "41" @default.
• W2807264112 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2807264112 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2807264112 magId "2807264112" @default.
• W2807264112 workType "article" @default.